Windows 7 Performance Guide
by Ryan Smith and Gary Key on October 26, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Upgrade or Clean Install?
There’s probably a special place in Hell for even pondering this (Ed: Level 7 of Robot Hell, in fact), but after experimenting with Windows 7’s upgrade install feature, we’re going to seriously discuss it for a moment.
There’s no prior version of Windows we would ever seriously recommend an upgrade install for. Upgrade installs have historically offered very spotty results, in cases leaving systems or applications in malfunctioning states. The best path always has and always will continue to be a complete reinstall, so that old programs and old Windows components don’t interfere with the newest version of Windows.
But with Windows 7, we’re willing to reconsider. When it comes to the transition from Vista to Windows 7, there have been very few significant changes to the underpinnings of Windows. Certainly compared to moving from XP to Vista, there are no major changes in any aspect of the driver stack or the audio stack, nor has security, the bootloader, or any number of other subsystems been overhauled. Jokes about Windows 7 being Vista SP3 aside, the lack of significant architectural changes between the operating systems means that it’s a favorable environment for an upgrade install, one more favorable than for any other consumer version of Windows.
Good idea? Bad Idea?
In our own testing, we have taken two boxes from Vista to 7 using the upgrade install feature; one of these systems even did the Vista->7 RC1->7 RTM shuffle thanks to some INI hacking. Both of these systems have turned out fine, suffering no ill effects compared to any of the systems we have done clean installs on. And while the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, we’ve seen similar reports elsewhere in places such as our forums that corroborate this.
To be clear, a clean install is always going to be the safer option. It forgoes any risk of old Windows components contaminating the new install, and hence for anyone that absolutely needs it to go right the first time, it’s still the way to go. But an upgrade install, when it works, is certainly more convenient than restoring a bunch of data and reinstalling every single program. Based on our experience, on a properly functioning machine this is something we would recommend trying so long as you have a good backup and the guts to give it a shot.
There are two things that need to be kept in mind when it comes to doing an upgrade install however. The first is that the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor contains a list of programs that it will want uninstalled before performing an upgrade. Programs that install system components such as VMWare or iTunes are chief among these, as those components won’t properly survive the upgrade; so some program reinstallation may still be required depending on what software you have. The second thing is that the upgrade process involves scanning, categorizing, and saving a lot of data, which means it can take a while. On one computer this took a hefty 5 hours, and on another lightly-used computer this was barely an hour. The key factor here is how much user data and how many programs are installed – the more stuff you have, the longer it will take. On a heavily used computer, this is something you may want to let run overnight or at some other point where you wouldn’t normally be using your computer.
Finally, there is no XP to 7 upgrade option, which given the issues in performing this action with Vista, doesn’t surprise us in the slightest. For XP users, there only option is a clean install, which in this case involves the Windows 7 installer backing up the old installation and laying down a fresh Windows 7 install.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
207 Comments
View All Comments
Exar3342 - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
Darwinosx: "Is this the new mac operating system?"Apple store employee: "Yes, it is called 'Snow Leopard'".
Darwinosx: "I like cats...this must be the best around because of the cute kitty on the box. I will buy it!"
JimmyJimmington - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
Yup, macs have no security vulnerabilities at all. Exactly.StevoLincolnite - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
MacOSX is far from the best Operating system out there, it has a tiny market share, lacks software/API compatibility, and usually comes with rather antiquated hardware, and cheap plastic looks. (Even the Aluminum bodied ones, look cheap and flimsy to me, despite them being of a solid build).I usually avoid all Articles based around the Mac because it's completely pointless to read, I have never owned a Mac, I never want to own a Mac, I have used a Mac and hated every moment of it, not because of the "Brand" but because I have to "Search" for OSX variations of the software I use, in such a case the Operating system is useless to me.
Windows 7 is awesome, been using it since the early Beta's, It's like a "Fine Wine" version of Vista, it's Vista that got better with age. - I don't expect a Mac user to understand the difference's as they are generally limited in intellectual capability.
******
What I REALLY wanted from this article is Windows 7's performance on something like the Atom 230/330 based processors so we can see how usable the Operating system is on such processors.
darwinosx - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
I didn't say it was the best now did I? But it is certainly better than this band aided and scotch taped version of Vista. I don't have any particular idea of a "best" OS in mind because I work with all of them. I have for 20+ years and I am quite well paid for it. Whereas you still get an allowance from daddy.Market share is no measure of how good something is. That is obvious.
Software/API compatibility? Meaning what exactly? I'd like to hear because I don't think you know.
Tell me one thing that is antiquated about Mac hardware? Plastic? What plastic? Your comments on the unibody are laughable. I'll leave it at that.
Oh you had to "search" for Mac software. That must have been difficult for you.
I understand you are just some teenager who doesn't know anything. But don't think everyone here is the same as you.
B3an - Monday, November 2, 2009 - link
Another moronic Mac user that knows nothing. All your points about about 7 are a joke. Chances are you have not even used it.The only "malware fest" was windows XP. I've used Vista since release with UAC turned off - never got anything.
And yes 7 uses more RAM, as it's a real OS and not a toy, it supports hundreds of thousands of 3rd party hardware and software, it can do a lot more. This tends to increase the complexity of an OS.
If OSX was actually good enough for most people to use, it would be a security mess as hackers would actually bother to attack it, and theres noway it's as secure as Vista or 7 if it came down to that.
Ahmed0 - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
Remember kids, dont put your hands through the cage and dont feed the trolls.Lifted - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
You should stock up on the pads as it looks like you're in for some heavy flow this month ma'am.Sc4freak - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
"But what I don’t get is why there’s any reason good enough for Windows to not come with an email client at all. It’s 2009, why is there an operating system being released without an email client?"But you see, that would be violating anti-competition laws and would reduce consumer choice. Bundling Windows Live Mail is clearly unfair to Mozilla Thunderbird, Opera Mail, and all the other email client providers out there!
Obviously, the solution is that Microsoft must implement a ballot screen into Windows so users can choose whether to use Windows Live Mail or another competing product. Yep.
darwinosx - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
Bundling these apps was only an issue in Europe not in the U.S. It wasn't all of these apps ether. The biggest issue Microsoft regarding bundling is the browser and they still bundle that. So whatever Microsoft reason is for that it had nothing to do with bundling or anti-trust.A bigger question is why in an OS released in 2009 do you still need to manually defrag, still need registry cleaners, layers of anti-malware, and various other 3rd party utilities just to make it usable and semi-reliable? Pretty sad.
ProDigit - Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - link
I prefer to do these things manually!Automatic defrag in Vista and 7 is one of the major reasons for a degrading OS over time (in speed).
I prefer keeping control over many of the 'automatic' services,which somehow always seem to interfere with performance..
Ever played a game,and in the middle noticed a virusscan was happening on the background?
Or what about just silently reading a webpage, on the last of your battery of a laptop, and noticing how the HDD light flickers like crazy, making this annoying HDD sound while you're reading?
Those are the curses of the automatic tasks.
One of the first thing I did with XP and win98, when it got released,was disable the automatic task scheduler!
Some find automatic tasks a blessing, some a curse.
A Defrag on a normal system should be done twice or trice a year, not every day like Vista (provided if you stay above the 20% freespace).